## Facts

- Dr. Ross W. Greene, a psychologist affiliated with Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), developed the “Collaborative Problem Solving” (CPS) method and related training, research, and publications.
- Greene collaborated with Dr. J. Stuart Ablon, including co-authoring *Treating Explosive Kids*; Greene also authored *The Explosive Child* as a solo work.
- A dispute arose over (1) ownership and use of CPS-related trademarks and (2) alleged copyright infringement based on Ablon’s CPS-related PowerPoint slide decks.
- Greene sued MGH for trademark infringement; MGH counterclaimed that it owned the CPS marks under its institutional intellectual property policy tied to employment and use of MGH resources.
- Greene sued Ablon alleging the slides infringed copyrights in *The Explosive Child* and *Treating Explosive Kids*.
- The district court granted summary judgment to MGH on ownership of the CPS marks and rejected Greene’s contract-based challenges to the policy’s application.
- The district court held on partial summary judgment that *Treating Explosive Kids* was a joint work, and later ruled that it could not be a derivative work as a matter of law, limiting Greene’s infringement theory at trial.
- A jury found Ablon’s slides infringed *The Explosive Child* and awarded Greene $19,000 in damages.
- The district court denied Greene’s requests for an accounting of profits and a permanent injunction, and denied Ablon’s post-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial.
- Both sides appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether MGH, rather than Greene, owned the CPS-related trademarks under MGH’s intellectual property policy and the circumstances of Greene’s work.
2. Whether a work can simultaneously qualify as a joint work and a derivative work under the Copyright Act.
3. Whether Greene was entitled to an accounting of profits and permanent injunctive relief after the infringement verdict.
4. Whether the trial evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding that Ablon’s slides infringed *The Explosive Child*.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed summary judgment that MGH owned the CPS marks under its intellectual property policy as applied to Greene’s MGH-connected CPS activities.
- The court agreed *Treating Explosive Kids* was a joint work, but held the district court erred in ruling categorically that a work cannot be both joint and derivative.
- The joint/derivative error was harmless because Greene did not show the ruling affected the outcome of his infringement claim as tried.
- The court affirmed the denial of an accounting of profits and permanent injunctive relief.
- The court affirmed the denial of Ablon’s post-verdict motion, holding the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find infringement of *The Explosive Child*.

## Legal Principles

- Institutional intellectual property policies may vest trademark ownership in the institution when marks are created or used in connection with institution-sponsored activities and resources, and the creator is subject to the policy.
- A “joint work” requires intent that multiple authors’ contributions be merged into a unitary whole; co-authors generally may use the joint work without incurring infringement liability to each other for that use.
- The Copyright Act permits overlap: a work may be both a joint work and a derivative work; courts may not apply a categorical bar to dual classification.
- A legal error in characterizing a work warrants no relief on appeal absent a showing of prejudice to the appellant’s tried claims or remedies.
- Accounting of profits and permanent injunctions require an adequate evidentiary and equitable basis, including proof tying profits to infringing use and a showing of a cognizable threat of future infringement.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit upheld MGH’s ownership of CPS-related trademarks and the jury’s infringement verdict against Ablon, clarified that a work may be both joint and derivative, and affirmed denial of additional equitable and monetary remedies where Greene did not show entitlement to profits or a sufficient basis for injunctive relief.


Greene v. Ablon, 794 F.3d 133 (1st Cir. 2015)